soc.veterans

"tankfixer" wrote in message
news:MPG.2258545c4ef6567e989e5e@nntp.earthlink.net...
> In article <47ee8da3$0$30516$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
> dhunt@i70westnospam.com says...
>> "tankfixer" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.225811a75ed4bd13989e4c@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> > In article <47edcc02$0$26120$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
>> > dhunt@i70westnospam.com says...
>> >> "tankfixer" wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.22576358d4fe5691989e42@nntp.earthlink.net...
>> >> > In article <47edac4f$0$2908$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
>> >> > dhunt@i70westnospam.com says...
>> >> >> "redvet" wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1b8ru3dnl2fgq8vnequplpulvpf6a9hf3i@4ax.com...
>> >> >> > On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:29:02 -0700, tankfixer
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>In article <47ece57d$0$26086$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>Ask Daryl about his claim of seeing P-38's in squadron
>> >> >> >>service in the
>> >> >> >>1950's and in Korea....
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm just passing through on this thread and really don't
>> >> >> > know
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > players, however -
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Weren't P-38's used very early in the Korean war for photo
>> >> >> > recon? -
>> >> >> > redvet
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How dare you correct tinkerbell on anything. Afterall, he
>> >> >> IS
>> >> >> an expert on Military Air Forces since he once say a
>> >> >> Military
>> >> >> Plane at the movies.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The P-38 was formally retired from the ACTIVES in 1949 but
>> >> >> there were still a number kicking around in the ACTIVES.
>> >> >> This
>> >> >> doesn't mean that few weren't still around in the Air Guards
>> >> >> which Tinkerbell is an authority since he's a Guard himself
>> >> >> (an
>> >> >> Oregon ARMY National Guard). During the 70s, I was one of 5
>> >> >> less than E-7 that was able to work on the Junk. Yes, we in
>> >> >> the actives called much of what the Guards were saddled with
>> >> >> Junk. It was AC that were taken out of
>> > the
>> >> > Active Duty Inventory and found alternative homes rather than
>> >> > all making it to DM or being sold off. During that time
>> >> > period,
>> >> > if it weren't for the handmedowns, the Air Guards would have
>> >> > been strapped as the funds just weren't there. I can imagine
>> >> > what it was like after WWII where the Actives wanted all jets
>> >> > and had all these propjobs sitting out in the tarmacs. The
>> >> > Guards were probably thankful for getting just about anything
>> >> > newer than a P-36 or the venerable P-
>> > 40.
>> >> > I do imagine they wanted the P-80s and P-51s but would settle
>> >> > for a P-47 or a P-38 in a heartbeat.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The USAF disagree's with you daryl, take it up with them.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, the USAF does officially. Yes, the ACTIVE USAF. But
>> >> those
>> >> of us that have been around awhile know that in the olden days
>> >> (not necessarily the good ol days) that there were aircraft
>> >> kicking around in the Actives that the model was long since
>> >> listed
>> >> as officially retired. Newsflash, when you had to get an 8
>> >> wheeled Fire Engine onto a short Runway made up of gravel and
>> >> rocks do you try and land a C-5 in there? Sure you can except
>> >> you
>> >> ain't ever going to get it
>> > back in one piece if you sit it down. The Pacific will swallow
>> > it
>> > up since you won't have enough engines to ever get it off again.
>> > Enter the C-124 that was listed as completely retired by 1974
>> > yet
>> > there were 2 operating well past that since it was the only way
>> > to
>> > get an 8 wheeled Fire Engine onto the Alutiens Radar Sites in
>> > case
>> > of an ememgency. I bought the Official report as well until I
>> > was
>> > working on two of them in Anchorage Alaska.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Unfortunatly the USAF also has chronicals of the USAF reserve
>> > and
>> > Air
>> > Guard.
>> > http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/cantwellci
>> > tizen.htm
>> > http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/grossprelu
>> > de.htm
>> >
>>
>> Get better URLS that work.
>
> Oh I'm so sorry;
> Is this better ?
> http://tinyurl.com/3bntq3
> and
> http://tinyurl.com/3277rh
>
>>
>> > Regarding your mythical C-124 in Alaska post 1974, it sure would
>> > seem
>> > the rest of the world disagree's with you.
>>
>> Yuppers, and so did I untill I was introduced to both of them.
>> Can
>> anyone spell, "Verneir Movement" and BFH Electric Props? (the H
>> stands for Huge). We flew up in late 71 and had a flyoff against
>> Elmendorf. We brought the best of the E models up there, the 63s.
>> All the mods were done and they could fly for days and weeks
>> without
>> much maintenance. We got up there and skoffed at that heaters
>> hanging out all those D models. Your supposed to know the USAF
>> well,
>> what is a D model and how does it differ from an E model? That
>> first
>> night in Jaunary, we had more leaks than a babies bottom. It took
>> us
>> a week to get things under control. You would think that the D
>> models were our worst nightmare since they flew almost every every
>> airframe every day. But the D could handle a bit more than half
>> our
>> cargo at 100 kts slower. It wasn't the Ds it was the two stinking
>> C-124s. I got curious and spent some time after the first week
>> with
>> the Elmendorf folks and learned some things about the 124 both
>> flightline and shop. It bit me in the Ass. I just stepped off a
>> 130E coming back from a 6 weeks TDY when I got handed PCS orders
>> with
>> 20 days to make port. Seems a SSgt flew his light plane into the
>> side of Mt McKinnley and a replacement was needed. I was one of 5
>> listed as qualified on a 124. Noper, I wasn't really qualified
>> but
>> special identifiers bit us all in the ass. But I was as close as
>> anyone still stateside with less than an E-7 rating. Now, I know
>> during those 3 years at Anchorage I did drink a bit but the
>> biggest
>> thing I conjered up was pink elephants about the size of a small
>> truck. Definately not something 4 stories high and dang near the
>> size of the Queen Mary.
>
> I'd have to guess you are blabbering on about C-130's ?
> So you were up there in 1971 or 1972 eh ?
>
>
>
>> It's not up to me to prove they weren't there. It's up to you to
>> prove they weren't. And so far, all you have done is post the
>> "Official" record and one persons personal page. People that
>> believe
>> everything a Government "Official" report says are very foolish
>> indeed.
>
> I don't doubt they were there daryl since even the USAF says that
> two
> were in service up until 1974.
> And you just pointed out you were there in 1971......
>
>> >
>> >> Like the man said, the 38 was used in Korea as a Photo Recon.
>> >> And
>> >> Nasa kept a couple around for that same reason. Can we prove
>> >> it?
>> >> Not anymore than it can be proven that there were two C-124s
>> >> sitting in Anchorage either. Can you prove anything by
>> >> saying
>> >> over and over that the "Official" ACTIVE Duty reports show that
>> >> they were out of service by a certain date that there were none
>> >> in
>> >> the Guards? Nope, and you ain't old enough to know different.
>> >> You can only go
>> > what the "Official" report tells you. Since us old hands know
>> > that
>> > the Guard prior to 1980 got the leftovers with a lot of smirking
>> > involved from the Actives there is many possibilities that even
>> > we
>> > are not aware of that happened. Funny, in 1978 I was sent to
>> > support a C-119 Guard bird but by 1978, those critters were all
>> > supposed to be out of everyones enventory except for drug
>> > runners
>> > and third world countries. We pulled in with our bright and new
>> > spanking C-130E and
>> > got a birst of nastalgia. You only see what the "Official"
>> > reports
>> > tell you and you accept them as "LAW". That's foolish. You
>> > aren't
>> > old enough to actually experienced everything and that is also
>> > foolish. What is even more foolish is for you to keep on with
>> > this
>> > stupidity.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If such an usual airframe was used on Korea I would expect those
>> > writing
>> > about the war would have mentioned it. Yet they do not.
>>
>> And neither are those two C-124s after their "Official"
>> retirement.
>
> If you were there in 1971 like you claim they were still in
> service...
> So you contend that aircraft still in service past their official
> retirement date would not get noticed and written up by ANYONE
> involved
> with chronicling events ?

I left Anchorage (Elmendorf) for Pete Field in 75 and they were still
there. The C-117 wasn't invented yet. But I imagine that the 124s
were taken out of service long before the 117 came into the
inventory. The only real parts we had was DM in Arizona. During the
3 years I was stationed at Elmendorf, there was two trips to take Air
Frames down to DM, strip off the useable parts and build up another
one with some time still left on the Air Frame. USAF flew the 124
until it was completely out of Air Frame time a piece at a time. The
only reason for it to exist after the C-5 was introduce was for
specialty missions like the Di Sites on the Chain. I imagine the
Navy probably picked up transporting the Fire Engines after that or
they just put an 8 wheel fire engine at each site and was done with
it. For every 8 hours of flight, the 124 had 18 hours of
maintenance. This is why there were two there and you only flew one.
>
>
>> >
>> > Maybe the problem isn't that I'm not old enough but that you are
>> > TOO old
>> > and can't remember things correctly ?
>>
>> Just how many people that worked around and flew Shakeys get too
>> old
>> to remember it. IT's like misplacing friggin building.
>
> So how come you keep getting it wrong ?

LOL, you are trolling once again. I hear Trace is out and about and
waiting for you to join in.


>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Things have changed mightily when you see an Air Guard with
>> >> >> F-16s which are essentially the same models as the Actives.
>> >> >> There was a tremendous modernization in the 80s that brought
>> >> >> the Air National Guard out of the Junk dealerships. After
>> >> >> seeing first hand the junk they had to work with before, it
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> a long time coming and it's paid off in dividends ever
>> >> >> since.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > FYI, your newsreader is no longer wrapping text at 80
>> >> > characters...
>> >>
>> >> You know for you, even if you weren't just trolling, your
>> >> letter
>> >> is almost civilized. Stupid, but almost civilized. Did it
>> >> ever
>> >> occur to you to actually TRY and contribute instead of
>> >> trolling?
>> >> If you are going to troll, try trace or some of the real
>> >> characters who are here just to disrupt like you are. Keep it
>> >> in
>> >> the family.
>> >
>> > Your newsreader is still not wrapping text correctly daryl.
>>
>> I'll take that into consideration.
>
> I see you fixed it. I'd hate to see you get killfiled by everyone
> because you can't properly set up your newsreader...

Yeah, right. You really do care, don't you (snicker)






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com